Crypto World
Tokenized deposits could drain $580B from U.S. bank lending
A research paper published this week quantifies what happens when bank deposits move at blockchain speed. The number is large enough to reshape how banks fund the economy, and the crypto industry is building the pipes without acknowledging the consequences.
Summary
- A research paper published on August 25 found that tokenized deposits could reduce U.S. bank lending capacity by $580 billion if the technology reaches widespread adoption, roughly 5% of total bank lending.
- The mechanism is straightforward: banks lend against stable deposits, and if deposits can move on chain in minutes instead of days, the deposit base becomes less stable, forcing banks to hold more liquid reserves and lend less.
- LayerZero and Keeta launched tokenized bank deposits across Ethereum, Solana, Base, and Keeta in July 2026, covering nine fiat currencies and making the theoretical risk operationally real.
- The Bank of England endorsed tokenized deposits as belonging in UK payments infrastructure, and South Korea began trialing them for government spending, indicating that adoption pressure is coming from regulators, not just startups.
- The $580 billion figure assumes a moderate adoption scenario. The paperâs high adoption model projects a reduction of $1.2 trillion in lending capacity, a number that would force structural changes to how U.S. banks fund mortgages, small business loans, and commercial real estate.
The crypto industry has spent two years building infrastructure to put bank deposits on chain. The banking industry has spent two years worrying about what happens when it works. A new research paper puts a number on the worry, and the number is large enough that both sides should be paying closer attention.
How bank lending actually works
This section requires explaining something that most crypto coverage skips entirely: the mechanics of fractional reserve banking and why deposit stability is the load bearing wall of the entire system.
When a customer deposits $1,000 at a bank, the bank does not keep $1,000 in a vault. It keeps a fraction, typically 3% to 10% depending on the bankâs risk profile and regulatory requirements, and lends the rest. That $900 or $970 goes to a mortgage borrower, a small business, or a commercial real estate developer. The borrower spends it, and the recipient deposits it at another bank, which lends most of that out again. This is the money multiplier, and it is the engine that converts $22 trillion in U.S. bank deposits into $12 trillion in bank lending.
The system works because deposits are sticky. A customer who deposits money on Monday does not withdraw it on Tuesday. The bank can rely on a statistical floor, the amount that will remain regardless of individual withdrawals, and lend against that floor with reasonable confidence.
Regulatory frameworks formalize this assumption. Basel III assigns stability scores to different deposit types. Retail deposits from individuals receive the highest stability weighting because individuals rarely move their entire balance in a single day. Corporate deposits receive lower scores because businesses manage cash more actively. Interbank deposits receive the lowest scores because banks move money constantly.
The Liquidity Coverage Ratio, a core Basel III metric, requires banks to hold enough high quality liquid assets to cover 30 days of net cash outflows under stress. The calculation assumes that retail deposits experience outflows of 3% to 10% over 30 days. Corporate deposits face outflow assumptions of 20% to 40%. These percentages determine how much of each deposit type a bank can lend out.
Tokenized deposits threaten to reclassify every deposit into the highest outflow category, because the technology makes any deposit as mobile as an interbank transfer.
What the paper found
The research paper, published on August 25, modeled three scenarios for tokenized deposit adoption in the U.S. banking system.
In the low adoption scenario, covering 5% to 10% of total deposits, the impact on lending capacity is modest: roughly $120 billion, absorbed through minor adjustments to reserve ratios and overnight funding markets. Banks would barely notice, and the adjustment would be indistinguishable from normal quarter to quarter fluctuations in deposit levels.
In the moderate scenario, covering 15% to 25% of deposits, lending capacity falls by $580 billion. This is the headline number, and it represents a meaningful contraction. To put it in context, $580 billion is roughly the total outstanding balance of U.S. auto loans, or about one third of all outstanding commercial and industrial loans. A contraction of that magnitude would not cause a crisis, but it would tighten credit availability for borrowers at the margin, precisely the small businesses and first time homebuyers who are most rate sensitive.
In the high adoption scenario, covering 35% to 50% of deposits, the reduction reaches $1.2 trillion. At that level, banks would need to fundamentally restructure their funding models, shifting from deposit funded lending to wholesale funding markets, securitization, or Federal Home Loan Bank advances. Each of these alternatives is more expensive than deposits, which means the cost of borrowing rises for everyone. The paper estimates that average mortgage rates could increase by 15 to 30 basis points under the high adoption scenario, and small business loan rates could rise by 25 to 50 basis points.
The speed problem
The critical variable is not how much deposits move, but how fast they move. Traditional bank transfers through ACH take one to three business days. Wire transfers settle within hours but cost $25 to $50 and are typically reserved for large transactions. Neither mechanism threatens deposit stability because the friction creates natural resistance to movement.
Even FedNow, the Federal Reserveâs instant payment system launched in 2023, processes transfers in seconds but imposes transaction limits and operates within the existing banking framework. A FedNow transfer moves money from one bank account to another, but both accounts remain within the banking system. The deposit leaves one bank and arrives at another, preserving the aggregate deposit base.
Tokenized deposits are different. A transfer on Ethereumâs base layer settles in roughly 12 seconds. On Solana, it takes under a second. On a Layer 2 like Base, settlement is near instantaneous for the user, with finality following within minutes. More importantly, the deposit can leave the banking system entirely, moving into DeFi protocols, smart contract escrow, or cross chain bridges where no bank holds the underlying balance.
The paper models the impact of settlement speed directly. At one day settlement, the effect on deposit stability is negligible. At one hour settlement, it becomes measurable. At near instant settlement, which is what blockchain infrastructure provides, the deposit stability models that underpin Basel III capital requirements break down entirely, because the statistical assumptions about how long deposits remain were calibrated for a world where moving money takes days, not seconds.
This is not a theoretical concern. The tokenized deposit infrastructure is already live. LayerZero and Keeta deployed tokenized bank deposits across four chains in July 2026. USBC, Uphold, and Vast Bank launched the first retail tokenized U.S. dollar deposits in late 2025. The pipes exist. The question is how much volume they carry and how quickly that volume grows.
Who is building this and why
The builders fall into three categories, each with different motivations and different risk profiles.
Fintech infrastructure companies like LayerZero and Keeta are building the plumbing. Their business model is transaction fees and protocol revenue. More deposit movement means more revenue. They have no incentive to consider the systemic effects on bank lending because those effects are externalities, costs borne by borrowers and the broader economy while the revenue flows to the infrastructure provider.
LayerZeroâs deployment covers nine fiat currencies across four blockchains. Keetaâs architecture allows any bank to issue tokenized deposits on its platform, abstracting the blockchain layer so that depositors interact with a familiar banking interface while their funds exist as on chain tokens. The cross chain interoperability means a deposit tokenized on Ethereum can move to Solana in minutes, a level of fungibility that traditional banking infrastructure cannot match.
Banks themselves are experimenting cautiously. JPMorganâs Kinexys platform processes tokenized deposit transfers between institutional counterparties. MUFG, SMBC, and Mizuho in Japan are piloting tokenized government bonds settled through tokenized central bank reserves. The Bank of Japanâs sandbox uses tokenized central bank reserves as the settlement asset, which is as close to a central bank digital currency as Japan has come without officially launching one. These pilots are controlled environments with known counterparties and limited scale, but the technology they validate is the same technology that, at scale, could destabilize their own deposit bases.
Regulators are the wild card. The Bank of England explicitly endorsed tokenized deposits as part of UK payments infrastructure. Sarah Breeden, the Bankâs deputy governor for financial stability, said tokenized deposits belong in the UKâs future payments architecture alongside stablecoins and a potential digital pound. South Korea is trialing tokenized deposits for government operational spending. The GENIUS Actâs stablecoin framework implicitly endorses the underlying technology by creating a regulated category for digital dollars that compete with bank deposits for the same customer balances.
Regulators are simultaneously promoting the technology and responsible for managing the systemic risk it creates. The contradiction is not lost on central bankers, but the competitive pressure from Chinaâs digital yuan pilots and the private sectorâs first mover advantage leaves regulators feeling that the alternative to managed adoption is unmanaged adoption, which is worse.
The stablecoin connection
Tokenized deposits and stablecoins are often discussed as competitors, but the systemic risk analysis reveals them as complements that amplify the same underlying pressure on bank balance sheets.
Stablecoins like USDC and USDT are backed by Treasury bills, commercial paper, and bank deposits. When a user buys $1,000 of USDC, Circle deposits that $1,000 at a partner bank. The bank lends against it. The deposit is still in the banking system; it has just been intermediated through a stablecoin issuer. Circleâs reserve management acts as a buffer, because Circle does not withdraw its deposits based on individual user redemptions. It manages aggregate flows, smoothing the volatility.
Tokenized deposits cut out the intermediary. When a user holds a tokenized deposit, they hold a direct claim on the bank. There is no stablecoin issuer sitting between the depositor and the bank. That directness is marketed as an advantage, eliminating counterparty risk from the stablecoin issuer, but it also means the depositor can withdraw at blockchain speed without Circle or Tether serving as a shock absorber.
The Revolut stablecoin launch in Europe illustrates the competitive dynamics. Revolut has 50 million users who can now hold euros in a stablecoin form. If those users shift from bank deposits to Revolutâs stablecoin or to tokenized deposits, the net effect on European bank lending capacity follows the same pattern the research paper describes for the U.S.
The combined effect of stablecoins and tokenized deposits is larger than either alone. Stablecoins pull deposits out of the banking system and into reserve managed pools. Tokenized deposits keep deposits in the banking system but make them volatile. Both reduce the stable deposit base that banks use to justify long term lending.
The section a competitor could not write
Every existing analysis of tokenized deposits focuses on either the technology (how they work) or the opportunity (how much faster payments become). This piece examines the second order effect that neither the crypto industry nor the banking industry wants to discuss openly.
The crypto industry does not want to discuss it because acknowledging that tokenized deposits reduce lending capacity undermines the narrative that blockchain technology is purely additive. If putting deposits on chain means fewer mortgages, fewer small business loans, and higher borrowing costs, the political and regulatory response will be hostile. The industry has spent years arguing that crypto creates new financial access. The research paper suggests it could restrict existing access by destabilizing the lending infrastructure that funds the real economy.
The banking industry does not want to discuss it because acknowledging the risk validates the technologyâs power. If tokenized deposits are not a threat to deposit stability, there is no reason to oppose them. If they are a threat, it means the technology works exactly as described, moving money faster and more efficiently than legacy rails. That admission attracts more investment, more builders, and faster adoption, accelerating the very dynamic banks fear.
The research paper breaks this silence by quantifying the cost. $580 billion in reduced lending capacity is not an existential threat to the U.S. banking system, but it is large enough to change behavior. Banks would need to raise deposit rates to retain customers, increase wholesale funding at higher cost, or reduce lending to lower risk categories. All three responses have consequences for borrowers who depend on affordable credit.
What the Fed would do
The Federal Reserve has not publicly addressed the research paperâs findings, but the institutional response is predictable based on how the Fed handled previous deposit stability threats, including the money market fund reforms of 2010 and 2014 and the SVB deposit flight crisis of 2023.
If tokenized deposit adoption reaches the moderate scenario, the Fed would likely adjust Liquidity Coverage Ratio requirements to classify tokenized deposits as less stable than traditional deposits, assigning them outflow rates of 40% to 60% instead of the 3% to 10% applied to standard retail deposits. This would increase the amount of high quality liquid assets banks must hold against tokenized deposit balances, effectively pricing in the faster withdrawal risk and reducing the lending capacity impact by forcing banks to hold more reserves from day one.
The Fed could also impose holding period requirements or withdrawal speed limits on tokenized deposits, similar to the gates and fees that money market funds implemented after the 2008 financial crisis and strengthened after the March 2020 liquidity stress. These measures would reduce the systemic risk but would also eliminate the speed advantage that makes tokenized deposits attractive in the first place, potentially killing adoption.
A more creative response would involve the Fed launching its own tokenized settlement system through FedNow or a future central bank digital currency, allowing deposits to move quickly within a system the Fed controls and monitors in real time. This would preserve the speed benefit while keeping the systemic risk management within the central bankâs perimeter.
What would prove this analysis wrong
Three developments would invalidate the $580 billion projection.
First, if tokenized deposits adopt voluntary speed limits, settling in hours instead of seconds, the deposit stability impact drops sharply. Some implementations already include programmable settlement delays that can be configured by the issuing bank. If these become standard, the paperâs extreme speed scenarios do not materialize, and the impact reverts to the low adoption model even at higher volume.
Second, if banks create new lending products specifically designed for volatile deposit bases, the lending capacity reduction could be offset. Variable rate loans that reprice in real time, for example, would match asset duration to the shorter deposit duration, preserving lending volume at the cost of transferring interest rate risk to borrowers. Overnight repo style lending, already common in institutional markets, could expand to consumer credit.
Third, if adoption stalls below 10% of total deposits, the low scenario applies and the impact is within the range that existing capital buffers can absorb without behavioral changes. Adoption is not guaranteed to reach the moderate scenario, and the friction of opening tokenized deposit accounts may limit uptake to technologically sophisticated users who represent a small fraction of total deposits.
What to watch
LayerZero and Keeta transaction volume. These platforms provide the clearest real time signal of how fast tokenized deposit adoption is growing. Monthly volume crossing $10 billion would put the system in the low adoption scenario. $100 billion would approach moderate.
Fed commentary on deposit stability. Any mention of tokenized deposits in Federal Reserve speeches, meeting minutes, or Financial Stability Reports would signal that the $580 billion scenario has entered the regulatory conversation. Watch the November 2026 Financial Stability Report specifically.
Basel Committee updates. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision reviews capital requirements for digital assets periodically. A reclassification of tokenized deposits in the liquidity coverage ratio framework would be the first regulatory acknowledgment of the speed risk at the global standard setting level.
Bank deposit rate movements. If major U.S. banks begin raising deposit rates in markets where tokenized deposit alternatives are available, it would confirm that deposit competition is already affecting bank behavior, even before adoption reaches the paperâs moderate scenario.
Central bank digital currency timelines. A Fed CBDC or expanded FedNow tokenized settlement system would provide a government controlled alternative to private tokenized deposits, potentially capping adoption of private solutions at a level below the paperâs risk thresholds.
What are tokenized deposits?
Tokenized deposits are bank deposits represented as digital tokens on a blockchain. They give the depositor a direct claim on the issuing bank, the same as a traditional deposit, but allow transfers at blockchain speed instead of through traditional banking rails like ACH or wire transfers.
How could tokenized deposits reduce bank lending?
Banks lend against stable deposits, relying on statistical models that assume most depositors will not withdraw their money on any given day. If deposits can move in seconds instead of days, the deposit base becomes less predictable. Banks must hold more liquid reserves to cover faster potential withdrawals, leaving less capital available for loans.
How much lending could be affected?
A research paper published August 25, 2026, projects that moderate adoption of tokenized deposits could reduce U.S. bank lending capacity by $580 billion, roughly the total outstanding balance of U.S. auto loans. High adoption could reduce it by $1.2 trillion.
Are tokenized deposits the same as stablecoins?
No. Stablecoins are issued by non bank entities like Circle or Tether and backed by reserves including Treasury bills and bank deposits. Tokenized deposits are issued by banks and represent a direct deposit claim. Stablecoins add an intermediary between the depositor and the bank. Tokenized deposits remove it, giving the depositor direct access to withdraw at blockchain speed.
Which banks are experimenting with tokenized deposits?
JPMorgan runs Kinexys for institutional tokenized transfers. In Japan, MUFG, SMBC, and Mizuho are piloting tokenized government bonds settled through tokenized central bank reserves. Vast Bank in the U.S. launched the first retail tokenized dollar deposits in late 2025. LayerZero and Keeta deployed multi chain infrastructure covering nine fiat currencies in July 2026.
Would the Federal Reserve intervene?
The Fed has not publicly addressed the research. Based on precedent from money market fund reforms and the SVB crisis response, the Fed would likely adjust liquidity requirements, impose settlement speed limits, or launch its own tokenized settlement system if adoption reaches levels that threaten deposit stability.
How fast can tokenized deposits move?
On Ethereum, settlement takes roughly 12 seconds. On Solana, under one second. On Layer 2 networks like Base, near instantly from the userâs perspective. This speed, compared to one to three business days for ACH transfers, is what makes tokenized deposits both attractive as a product and risky as a systemic factor.
Should I be concerned about tokenized deposits?
This is educational analysis, not investment advice. Tokenized deposits offer faster payments and broader access to banking services. The systemic risk to bank lending is real but depends on adoption rates that remain uncertain. The technology is in early deployment, and regulatory responses will shape outcomes significantly over the next two to three years.
Disclosure: This content is provided by a third party. Neither crypto.news nor the author of this article endorses any product mentioned on this page. Users should conduct their own research before taking any action related to the company.
Crypto World
UK police seize $1.4M tied to darknet market activity
A regional UK police force has seized 20.21 Bitcoin and other assets valued at more than $1.4 million after tracing the funds to darknet marketplaces active between 2016 and 2019.
Summary
- Police recovered 20.21 BTC, other cryptoassets, and bank funds valued at ÂŁ1.03 million.
- Investigators traced the holdings to unnamed darknet markets that operated from 2016 to 2019.
- A court forfeited the assets under the Proceeds of Crime Act earlier in 2026.
- The recovery is the forceâs largest since new crypto freezing powers took effect in April 2024.
UK police recover 20.21 Bitcoin and other assets
Avon and Somerset Police said on Aug. 27 that its Financial Investigation Unit had recovered 20.21 BTC, other digital assets, and money held in a bank account.
The assets had a combined value of ÂŁ1,032,487.86, or more than $1.4 million, when the police force valued them. Officials did not disclose the amount held in other cryptocurrencies or the bank account, nor did they identify the tokens involved.
Earlier in 2026, a court approved the forfeiture after accepting that the holdings represented proceeds from unlawful conduct. Police pursued the assets under the Proceeds of Crime Act, which allows authorities to recover property obtained through criminal activity.
The unnamed person at the center of the investigation had previously been convicted of money laundering and has since died, according to the statement. Officials did not disclose when the earlier conviction occurred, the offenses connected to it, or whether anyone else was investigated.
At Bitcoinâs current price of about $77,570, the 20.21 BTC alone would be worth approximately $1.57 million. The difference from the police valuation may come from the date on which officials calculated the total, as Bitcoinâs market price has changed since the assets were forfeited. The force did not provide a valuation date or state whether any of the Bitcoin had been converted into pounds.
Blockchain records exposed the darknet funds
Working with the forceâs cyber team, financial investigators used specialist tracing methods to follow the assets to several darknet marketplaces operating from 2016 through 2019.
Police did not name the platforms but said law enforcement agencies have since closed all of them. According to the force, the marketplaces facilitated offenses ranging from drug distribution to human trafficking.
The period includes several major darknet enforcement operations. The U.S. Department of Justice closed the AlphaBay market in July 2017 after an international investigation involving authorities in the United States, Thailand, the Netherlands, Lithuania, Canada, the United Kingdom, and France.
Dutch police had secretly taken control of Hansa before closing it alongside AlphaBay. Europol said investigators operated Hansa for about one month, allowing them to collect information about vendors and customers who moved to the platform after the AlphaBay takedown.
Dream Market, another large platform from the period covered by the Avon and Somerset investigation, stopped operating in 2019. The police statement did not say whether the recovered Bitcoin passed through AlphaBay, Hansa, Dream Market, or other marketplaces.
Although darknet services can hide the people behind transactions, public blockchain records retain the movement of Bitcoin between addresses. Investigators can combine that transaction history with exchange records, seized devices, and other financial evidence to identify links between wallets and suspected criminal activity.
Detective Constable Anthony Davis of the Financial Investigation Unit said some people believe cryptocurrency can provide anonymity, conceal wealth, and keep assets outside the reach of police. In practice, he said, the blockchain stores a âpermanent record of transactionsâ that can become âan invaluable source of evidence.â
Davis added that specialist financial investigation skills had become increasingly important for locating and recovering criminal assets held in cryptocurrencies.
UK crypto freezing powers support asset recovery
The operation is Avon and Somerset Policeâs largest cryptocurrency seizure since crypto wallet freezing orders became available in April 2024.
The UK government introduced the new powers through changes to the Proceeds of Crime Act. Police can freeze cryptoassets when they have reasonable grounds to suspect a connection to illegal activity, even when authorities have not made an arrest.
Before the amendments, officers could face limits when trying to take control of digital assets during an investigation. The current rules allow authorities to transfer seized tokens into law enforcement-controlled wallets and recover items that could provide access to the funds, including written passwords and storage devices.
Officers may also destroy a cryptoasset when returning it to circulation would not serve the public interest. When the measures took effect, the UK Home Office identified privacy-focused cryptocurrencies as one type of asset that could require such treatment.
A freezing order does not itself establish that an asset is criminal property. In the Avon and Somerset case, the holdings were forfeited only after a court became satisfied that they came from unlawful conduct.
Money recovered under the Proceeds of Crime Act can be directed to policing and community programs. Avon and Somerset Police said the funds may support education, training, early intervention and crime-prevention work.
U.S. cases also rely on blockchain tracing
The British recovery follows several American cases in which investigators used transaction records to locate crypto connected to darknet services.
In January, crypto.news previously reported that the U.S. Department of Justice completed a $400 million forfeiture involving assets seized from Helix operator Larry Dean Harmon. The DOJ said Helix processed more than 354,000 BTC between 2014 and 2017 and helped customers conceal funds associated with darknet markets.
A federal court granted the U.S. government legal ownership of the Helix assets after Harmon pleaded guilty in 2021 to operating an unlicensed money-transmitting business and violating the Bank Secrecy Act. He received a three-year prison sentence in 2024.
In June, U.S. prosecutors charged two alleged operators of the AudiA6 laundering service, which authorities accused of handling more than $389 million in cryptocurrency. Blockchain analysis cited by prosecutors identified about 10,333 BTC deposited into wallets controlled by the service since 2021, including 393.39 BTC sent directly from known darknet markets, ransomware groups, and other illicit sources.
The UK has also handled much larger Bitcoin recoveries. In September 2025, Chinese national Zhimin Qian pleaded guilty after authorities recovered digital wallets containing 61,000 BTC connected to an investment fraud that targeted more than 128,000 people in China. Police discovered the wallets during a 2018 raid after receiving information about the transfer of criminal assets, according to earlier case coverage.
Crypto World
Helium Token Skyrockets 100% After Texas Town Turns Wi-Fi Into Cell Coverage
Helium (HNT) jumped almost 100% on Saturday. Behind the surge is a Texas town that stopped waiting for cell towers and switched on Wi-Fi it already owned.
Celina sits north of Dallas. It added 12,710 residents in a year and grew 24.6%, the fastest of any US city with more than 20,000 residents.
How Helium Turned Wi-Fi Into Cell Service
Helium announced the deployment on Friday. It covers the Celina Public Library, the Ralph O’Dell Senior Center, and some downtown shops.
The city built nothing new, since it already had Wi-Fi. Helium added a layer that lets phones treat those hotspots as cell coverage.
Phones sign in using credentials already stored on the SIM card. No app or password. Most people never notice the handoff.
The idea is not new either. AT&T signed on to the same Helium system in April 2025. That deal is what makes the automatic connection work.
“Helium let us turn Wi-Fi we already own into coverage our residents’ phones use automatically, without spending a dollar on new towers,” said Amy Alexander, director of information technology for the City of Celina.
Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens
Why Helium Jumped Nearly 100%
The news broke Friday, yet HNT ran overnight and added roughly $37 million in market value. Those Celina sites carry about 100 GB a day. That is one library, one senior center, and a few shops.
So traders bought the idea, not the income. HNT gained 97.4% over 30 days, and almost all of it arrived in the final 24 hours.
Turnover says the same thing because close to $44 million changed hands in a day, more than half the token’s $79 million market value.
However, with HNT trading near $0.42, it remains down 85.6% over 12 months and far below its 2021 Helium price peak of $54.88.
The post Helium Token Skyrockets 100% After Texas Town Turns Wi-Fi Into Cell Coverage appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Crypto World
Top 3 Altcoins to Watch This Weekend After Record High Price Jump
Three altcoins to watch this weekend share the same setup. Lighter (LIT), Zcash (ZEC), and Rain (RAIN) have each broken above multi-month highs and tagged their first Fibonacci extension target.
Each chart now asks the same question. The broken highs have flipped into support, while the 1.618 Fibonacci extension sits overhead as the next objective into the weekend.
Altcoin
Current Price
Next Resistance
Target if Cleared
Support if Price Falls
Lighter (LIT)
~$3.39
$3.79
$3.98
$3.30, then $2.76
Zcash (ZEC)
~$807
$903
$1,099
$749.65, then $628.63
Rain (RAIN)
~$0.01766
$0.01948
$0.02214
$0.01624, then $0.01420
Lighter Extends Its Breakout Toward $3.98
Lighter trades near $3.46 with a market capitalization of $865 million. The token has gained about 25% over the past week and roughly 57% over the past month.
The daily chart shows a clean breakout on Aug. 21 above $2.76, a level LIT had not traded through since January. That move followed a July tokenomics overhaul that introduced permanent supply reduction.
Price then cleared the 1.272 Fibonacci extension at $3.30 and now works toward the 1.618 extension at $3.98. That target sits about 15% above spot.
On a pullback, the broken $2.76 level becomes the first support. An ascending trendline drawn from the mid-May low is converging with the same price level, strengthening the zone.
Below it, the long-term 0.618 retracement at $2.00 remains the deeper floor.
Volume expanded higher on each leg, including the August advance that followed the first revenue-funded burn. RSI has cooled from an overbought reading near 85 to just under 70 without printing a bearish divergence.
Zcash Stalls Under $900
Zcash trades near $806 with a $13.6 billion market cap. ZEC has climbed roughly 75% in 30 days, extending a rally that began earlier this year.
The privacy coin broke above $749.65 and pushed into the 1.272 extension at $903.47 before sellers stepped in. Price has since settled back near $800, holding well above the breakout level.
The 1.618 extension at $1,099.14 marks the next upside objective, roughly 37% above current prices. ZEC still trades far below its record of $3,191.93, set in October 2016.
Support is stacked. The old $749.65 high sits first, followed by the 0.786 retracement at $628.63, which currently aligns with the 20-day moving average.
Bollinger Bands have expanded sharply, indicating a period of volatility rather than a range. Volume ticked higher on the breakout leg, and RSI holds near 70 with no bearish divergence. A newly listed Grayscale product tracking ZEC provides a fundamental backdrop for the move.
Rain Prints a Record High With Volume Behind It
Rain trades near $0.01763 with a $12.35 billion market cap. Market data places its record high at $0.019464, reached on Aug. 25.
The RAIN chart offers the cleanest structure of the three altcoins discussed here. Price built a tight accumulation base through early and mid-August, roughly between $0.0121 and $0.0130.
That base formed directly on the 0.618 retracement at $0.01259, and volume rose steadily inside the range before any breakout occurred. Accumulation therefore preceded the move rather than chasing it.
The Aug. 26 candle cleared $0.01624 and wicked into the 1.272 extension at $0.01884. The 1.618 extension at $0.02214 now stands about 27% higher.
Support levels sit at the broken $0.01624 high, then $0.01420, then the accumulation shelf at $0.01259. RSI trades above 70 with no bearish divergence, which suggests momentum remains intact.
One structural risk deserves attention. Circulating supply stands near 709 billion tokens against a maximum of 1.15 trillion, so further unlocks could weigh on price.
The post Top 3 Altcoins to Watch This Weekend After Record High Price Jump appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Crypto World
UAE âSpy Sheikhâ Behind Trump Crypto Bank: 49% Ownership, $500M and Questions MAGA Canât Avoid
Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed al Nahyan and co-investors are behind an entity that owns 49% of the holding company created for the planned Trump crypto World Liberty Financial’s US banking venture, according to people familiar with the matter, as cited by The Wall Street Journal.
The stake makes Tahnoon-linked investors the largest shareholders in the holding company behind a bank being prepared by the Trump family’s cryptocurrency venture.
The reported ownership arrangement follows a $500M investment in World Liberty Financial that Tahnoon backed last year in exchange for a 49% stake in the company, the Journal previously reported. The new venture expands the business relationship between the Trump-backed crypto company and a foreign government official.
Trump Crypto Bank Breakdown: Why the Initiative Matters Now
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency earlier this month granted preliminary conditional approval for World Liberty Financial to launch a federally chartered national trust bank, according to the Journal’s Aug. 27 report. The proposed bank would issue, redeem and safeguard USD1, the dollar-backed stablecoin World Liberty launched last year.
The preliminary approval places the proposed bank at the center of World Liberty Financial’s stablecoin business. It also focuses on the ownership of the holding company created for the venture, in which Tahnoon and his co-investors are reported to hold the largest stake.
Make Your Prediction Count With $25 For Free on Kalshi
The Ownership Question
The 49% holding-company stake follows the earlier 49% stake in World Liberty Financial itself. The Journal reported that Tahnoon-linked investors are behind the entity holding the largest stake in the holding company for the banking venture.
Tahnoon is the United Arab Emirates’ national security adviser and the brother of the country’s president. The Journal reported that he oversees an empire funded by his personal fortune and state money worth more than $1.3 trillion.
The report identifies the size of the stake and the investors behind it, but it does not detail the banking venture’s board composition, governance rights, or any veto arrangements associated with the ownership position. Those details would be important to assessing how the holding-company ownership is reflected in the venture’s operations.
Don’t Miss Out on Our $1,000 USDT Airdrop on ByBit
What the Reporting Establishes
The reporting establishes a significant financial relationship between World Liberty Financial and investors linked to a senior UAE official. It does not establish that Tahnoon personally directs the planned bank’s day-to-day management or sets its U.S. regulatory strategy.
Tahnoon has sometimes been referred to in coverage as the spy Sheikh. The Journal’s reporting on this banking venture identifies his role as the UAE’s national security adviser and describes the ownership stake, but does not connect the nickname to operational control of World Liberty Financial’s planned bank.
How USD1 Fits Into the Proposed Trump Crypto Bank
USD1 is World Liberty Financial’s dollar-backed stablecoin, launched last year. Under the OCC’s preliminary conditional approval, the federally chartered national trust bank would issue, redeem, and safeguard the token.
The report describes the proposed Trump crypto bank’s role in USD1 but does not provide further detail about the venture’s governance structure or how the holding company’s ownership would relate to specific banking functions. The preliminary approval is therefore a key development for the planned bank, while important operational details remain outside the reporting provided.
Never Miss a Swing Again: Use AI Copy Trading Bots From CryptoHopper
The post UAE âSpy Sheikhâ Behind Trump Crypto Bank: 49% Ownership, $500M and Questions MAGA Can’t Avoid appeared first on Cryptonews.
Crypto World
Microsoft, Palantir Lead Five Stocks Near Buy Points In Hot Sector
Technology stocks are back, as Magnificent Seven member Microsoft (MSFT) extends a breakout. Palantir Technologies (PLTR), Workday (WDAY), JFrog (JFROG) and Shopify (SHOP) are other software stocks near buy points, too. After back-to-back losses, the S&P 500 Technology sector is up about 6% so far this month. The software segment is outperforming, with iShares Expanded Tech-Software Sector ETF (IGV) upâŠ
Copyright ©2026 Investor’s Business Daily, LLC. All rights reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
Crypto World
GOLD token crashes 99% after Trump-linked post, $1M dump
Trump Digital Gold has crashed 99% from its peak after wallets controlling 82.45% of the Solana tokenâs supply sold their holdings for about $1.01 million.
Summary
- Connected wallets sold 824.54 million GOLD tokens for 9,784.6 SOL, according to EmberCN.
- GOLD briefly reached a $66 million market cap after a Trump-affiliated merchandise account promoted it.
- The tokenâs market cap fell from $55 million to $1 million in about 30 seconds.
- U.S. regulators warn that social media promotions are frequently used in crypto pump-and-dump schemes.
GOLD wallets sold 82.45% of the token supply
On-chain analyst EmberCN reported on Aug. 29 that wallets linked to the Trump Digital Gold token had sold their entire holdings two hours before the post, receiving 9,784.6 Solana tokens worth approximately $1.01 million.
The wallets collectively controlled 824.54 million GOLD tokens, equal to 82.454% of the assetâs total supply, through a combination of pre-allocation and purchases made shortly after trading began. Such concentrated ownership allowed the connected addresses to sell most of the circulating supply once other traders entered the market.
EmberCN called the wallets the tokenâs âscammers,â although no law enforcement agency or U.S. regulator had publicly identified the people controlling the addresses at the time of writing. The on-chain analystâs post also did not name GOLDâs developers or provide evidence linking its creators directly to President Donald Trump, his family, or the Trump Organization.
GOLD was created on Solana at 7:38 a.m., according to the timeline shared by EmberCN. Less than two hours later, an X account using the handle @realtrumpcoins1 posted the tokenâs contract address, giving traders a direct route to buy the new asset.
The account is associated with a Trump merchandise collaboration, but its connection to branded products does not by itself establish that GOLD was an official Trump project. TrumpStore.com identifies itself as the Trump Organizationâs official retail website, while the organizationâs website directs customers to TrumpStore.com for its official merchandise. Neither page identified GOLD as an authorized digital asset.
Trump-linked promotion sent GOLD to a $66M peak
At around 9 a.m., the contract-address post from @realtrumpcoins1 prompted a rapid increase in trading, EmberCN said. GOLDâs market capitalization briefly reached $66 million as buyers entered the newly created market.
The token remained volatile over the next several hours before the promotional post disappeared at 11:48 a.m. According to the analyst, the connected wallet cluster began selling at the same time the account deleted the message.
Heavy selling drove GOLDâs market cap from approximately $55 million to $1 million in about 30 seconds. The addresses continued exchanging their tokens for SOL until they had disposed of the full 824.54 million-token position by around 2 p.m.
By the time EmberCN published the findings, GOLDâs market cap had fallen to approximately $700,000, representing a decline of nearly 99% from its $66 million peak. The analyst estimated that the sellers had converted their position into $1.01 million of SOL based on the cryptocurrencyâs value at the time.
A separate report citing Lookonchain described 15 wallets as linked to the team and said some of the addresses had bought GOLD before the promotional post appeared. Neither on-chain account identified the owners of the wallets, and the available blockchain records alone do not establish whether the same people controlled the token or the X account.
No public statement cited by EmberCN showed that Donald Trump promoted GOLD himself. The token is also separate from Official Trump (TRUMP), the Solana memecoin launched in January 2025 and publicly promoted through Trumpâs verified social media accounts.
GOLD crash follows a familiar Solana token pattern
The concentration of GOLDâs supply left buyers exposed to sales from a small wallet group. Once the holders of more than four-fifths of the supply exited, the token had few buyers capable of absorbing the volume entering the market.
As crypto.news previously explained, Solana launch platforms can make token creation and early trading almost immediate. The same process lets automated buyers, bundled wallets, and insiders acquire large positions before most retail traders find the asset.
Traditional rug pulls involve developers removing liquidity from a decentralized exchange pool. A token can also collapse when connected wallets control most of its supply and sell into demand created by social media promotion, even when liquidity has not been directly withdrawn.
GOLDâs sequence closely resembles an earlier incident involving BARRON, an unofficial token named after Trumpâs son. In January 2025, an insider wallet bought 136.35 million BARRON tokens for about $1,048 before exchanging the position for 4,405 SOL worth roughly $1.05 million after the token rallied, according to a report on the dump.
Another politically branded token drew scrutiny in May 2026 after Bubblemaps connected more than 200 newly funded wallets to nearly all of its initial supply. Wallets associated with the Ghanaian former president-themed CWU token sold about $600,000 while related addresses still controlled around 85%, according to the platformâs wallet-cluster findings.
Official Trump has faced separate questions in the United States. In August, U.S. senators called for the Securities and Exchange Commission to examine whether the official token had operated as a âsoft rug pullâ after falling about 98% from its peak. Nansen data cited by the lawmakers showed that 988,905 of the 1.48 million wallets that bought TRUMP held combined losses of approximately $3.81 billion, as detailed in the SEC probe request.
The lawmakersâ request did not establish that fraud occurred. Any enforcement decision would require regulators to examine the tokenâs structure, promotion, distribution, and the economic facts surrounding its sale.
U.S. rules leave meme coin buyers with limited protection
For U.S. traders, the SECâs Division of Corporation Finance said in February 2025 that the offer and sale of meme coins fitting its description generally do not involve securities under federal law. The staff viewed such assets as collectibles purchased mainly for entertainment, social interaction, and cultural purposes rather than investments tied to a business operation.
The SEC staff statement also said holders of meme coins covered by its analysis do not receive the protections of federal securities laws. The assessment is not binding law, and the agency said it would examine the economic reality of any product that uses a meme coin label to avoid securities requirements.
Fraudulent conduct can still lead to action under other federal or state laws even when a token is not considered a security, according to the SEC. Its Office of Investor Education and Advocacy has separately warned that fraudsters may create culture-themed tokens, promote them on social media to raise the price, and then sell their holdings before the attention disappears.
Under the agencyâs description of a crypto pump-and-dump, promoters profit from the inflated price while later buyers can suffer steep losses. The investor alert advises traders not to rely solely on social media posts or celebrity associations when deciding whether to buy a crypto asset.
Crypto World
Dow Jones Futures: Microsoft, Titans Mask Market Weakness. Here’s What To Do.
Dow Jones futures will open Sunday evening, along with S&P 500 futures and Nasdaq futures. The stock market’s major indexes rose modestly for the week, despite Friday’s losses as Treasury yields jumped on Fed chief Kevin Warsh’s Jackson Hole speech. But the small-cap Russell 2000 fell below key support while many sectors retreated for the week often with downside reversals.âŠ
Copyright ©2026 Investor’s Business Daily, LLC. All rights reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
Crypto World
Hyperliquid gets first HIP-4 outcome DEX with OUT
Hyperliquid has received its first reported builder-deployed HIP-4 outcome exchange after OUT completed deployment through the networkâs permissionless market framework.
Summary
- OUT has become the first reported outcome DEX deployed through Hyperliquidâs HIP-4 framework.
- Deployers can create YES/NO markets using templates approved by Hyperliquid validators.
- HIP-4 contracts are fully collateralized and operate without leverage, funding payments or liquidations.
- Hyperliquidâs current developer documentation lists permissionless deployer actions as available on the testnet.
Hyperliquidâs block explorer shows that a successful on-chain transaction registered the Outcome DEX under the name OUT through the HIP-4 deployment framework.
The transaction confirms OUTâs deployment but does not show whether its markets have opened for live trading. No separate announcement or verifiable website detailing its markets, liquidity, or trading activity was available at the time of writing.
Hyperliquidâs HIP-4 framework lets builders create markets
According to Hyperliquidâs developer documentation, HIP-4 lets approved deployers create outcome markets without seeking validator approval for every individual contract. Each market must still follow a template that the validator set has previously approved.
Templates define the basic form of a contract, its available results, and how it settles. Once validators approve one, a deployer can use the same structure to create separate markets that meet its conditions.
A YES/NO template allows traders to choose between two possible results. Multi-result templates can cover questions with several possible answers, although Hyperliquidâs main HIP-4 documentation says multi-outcome support was not included in the initial mainnet release and would arrive in stages.
Hyperliquidâs deployer page, updated on Aug. 13, lists functions for activating a DEX, selecting templates, setting a deployer fee scale, and creating markets. The documentation currently labels its HIP-4 deployer actions as testnet-only, meaning OUTâs deployment should not yet be described as a confirmed permissionless mainnet launch without additional evidence.
As crypto.news previously reported in July, Hyperliquidâs permissionless deployment plan was scheduled to begin on testnet before reaching mainnet. The proposal required market operators to stake 500,000 HYPE and allowed validators to slash deployers for incorrect or delayed settlement, according to the July report.
Separate stakes are required for HIP-3 and HIP-4 operations because one HYPE allocation cannot support both deployments at the same time, according to Hyperliquidâs framework. At current prices, the requirement can create a high entry cost for independent teams seeking to operate both perpetual and outcome exchanges.
HIP-4 outcome contracts remove leverage and liquidations
Hyperliquid introduced HIP-4 on testnet in February before activating its first outcome contracts on mainnet on May 2. A July HIP-4 framework explainer described the products as fully collateralized contracts that settle within a fixed range at expiration.
Unlike perpetual futures, an outcome position does not rely on borrowed funds or recurring payments between long and short traders. HIP-4 has no funding rate, while fully funded positions remove the liquidation process used to close leveraged trades when collateral falls below maintenance requirements.
For a binary market, a YES token settles at 1 if the stated event occurs and at 0 if it does not. The NO side receives the opposite result. A trader buying YES at 0.60 can earn 0.40 per contract if the event happens, while the purchase price represents the maximum possible loss.
Hyperliquidâs documentation describes HIP-4 as a general-purpose tool rather than a system limited to conventional prediction questions. Its fixed-range structure can also support bounded options-style products whose maximum payout and loss are known when the position opens.
Trading takes place through HyperCore, the networkâs on-chain order-book engine. HyperCore also runs Hyperliquidâs spot, perpetual, and HIP-3 builder-deployed markets, allowing HIP-4 products to use the same matching infrastructure and order types.
Fees are not charged when an outcome position opens, according to the protocol documentation. Charges can apply when a trader closes, burns, or settles a position, although Hyperliquid waived outcome-market fees during its initial testing period.
Bitcoin and CPI contracts tested HIP-4 settlement
Hyperliquidâs first mainnet HIP-4 product was a recurring Bitcoin binary contract. The market settled each day at 06:00 UTC against the BTC mark price published through HyperCore, providing an objective data point for deciding whether YES or NO tokens received the payout.
The network later expanded the product beyond crypto prices. In May, a U.S. CPI contract allowed traders to take positions on the annual inflation rate reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The CPI market offered three possible results: below 4.3%, exactly 4.3%, or above 4.3%. It used USDC as collateral and was scheduled to settle from the official BLS release, while early activity stood at about $3,000 in volume and $5,000 in open interest.
Validator-settled markets subsequently covered Federal Reserve decisions and sporting events, according to Galaxy Research. The research firm said validators could publish approved off-chain results through regular network operations, reducing reliance on a separate oracle provider.
Galaxy reported that HIP-4 recorded $2.38 million in 24-hour Bitcoin outcome volume by its 25th day. The total represented about 20% of the combined BTC prediction-market volume measured between Hyperliquid and Polymarket during that period, according to the firmâs June report.
Activity later declined after an early increase tied to World Cup markets. Blockworks data cited in a July market report placed HIP-4 open interest at about $182,000 and cumulative notional activity at approximately $881,000 at the time, though the figures covered a later snapshot and used a different measurement period.
U.S. access depends on event-contract regulation
For American traders, OUT does not carry the same regulatory status as Kalshi, which operates event contracts through a Commodity Futures Trading Commission-registered designated contract market. Hyperliquid has not announced that OUT is registered with the CFTC or available to U.S. users.
Hyperliquid Policy Center and Multicoin Capital addressed the regulatory divide in a July prediction-market rules filing. The groups asked the CFTC to publish clear federal standards for reviewing event contracts and explain publicly why specific contracts are approved or rejected.
Their submission said settlement terms should determine whether a contract falls into restricted categories involving gaming, war, assassination, or unlawful activity. The filing represented an industry policy request and did not give HIP-4 exchanges permission to serve U.S. traders.
State and federal regulators have also disputed whether some sports event contracts qualify as federally regulated derivatives or state-regulated wagers. Kalshi, Crypto.com and Robinhood have faced state challenges over sports-related products even when the contracts were offered through federally regulated market structures.
Hyperliquid users in the United States remain unable to access the protocol, according to an August filing cited by Hyperliquid Strategies. The company said it was unaware of a pending CFTC approval process for the network and warned that a route into the regulated U.S. market could not be assured.
Crypto World
Trump-Backed Brand Promotes Gold After Token Price Collapse
A Solana token promoted under the Real Trump Coins brand collapsed within hours of its launch, according to blockchain analytics and on-chain activity. The episode has quickly sparked scrutiny over the tokenâs legitimacy and raised questions about whether the brandâs social accounts or website were compromised.
Real Trump Coinsâan outlet that US President Donald Trump publicly promoted in 2024âadvertised a âTrump Digital GOLDâ token on X before deleting related posts on Saturday. Blockchain analytics firm Lookonchain later flagged the launch, alleging that the team behind the token controlled a large portion of the supply and used newly created wallets to dump holdings shortly after launch, causing the tokenâs value to plunge.
Key takeaways
- Lookonchain says GOLDâs developer and associated wallets controlled about 82.45% of the token supply at the time of the analysis.
- After being acquired by 15 newly created wallets, 224.5 million GOLD was reportedly sold for 3,178 SOL (about $330,000 at the time), contributing to a rapid price collapse.
- DE X Screener data cited in the reports shows GOLDâs market capitalization dropped from roughly $50 million to about $500,000 within hours.
- Real Trump Coinsâ website continued promoting the GOLD token after the X posts were deleted, leaving observers to question who initiated the launch and promotion.
- The incident adds to broader concerns around Trump-linked crypto brands as US policymakers debate a regulatory framework for digital assets.
GOLD launch on Solana ends in rapid sell-off
The token surfaced early Saturday after the Real Trump Coins X accountâan account that Trumpâs official profile followsâposted about the GOLD launch and directed users to RealTrumpCoins.com. Shortly after, Lookonchain flagged the activity, drawing attention to wallet distribution and the tokenâs early trading behavior.
In a thread referencing the on-chain setup, Lookonchain said the developer held 600 million GOLD while 15 newly created wallets spent $18,657 to buy an additional 224.5 million tokens. Lookonchain also warned that the team âcurrently controls 82.45% of the total supply,â advising traders to exercise caution.
Lookonchain later reported that those 15 wallets sold all 224.5 million GOLD for 3,178 SOL, describing it as an apparent rug-style extraction of value soon after acquisition. The same analysis estimated the walletsâ profit at roughly $312,000âabout 17 times the initial amount invested.
As selling spread, the tokenâs valuation deteriorated quickly. According to DEX Screener data referenced in the reporting, GOLDâs market capitalization fell from about $50 million to around $500,000 at the time of publication.
For traders, the takeaway is not just that the token declined, but how quickly supply concentration and early transfers translated into market impact. Such a patternâlarge holdings clustered near the deployer paired with rapid post-launch sellingâoften leaves retail buyers with limited exit liquidity.
Real Trump Coins keeps marketing GOLD after X deletion
Real Trump Coinsâ connection to the episode matters because Trump has previously promoted the brand. The companyâs site continued advertising GOLD at the time of publication, including a claim that it would charge a 4% trading fee and that it would use 99% of those fees to buy back the token in an attempt to push it toward a top-10 ranking by market capitalization.
However, observers noted a mismatch between marketing on the website and the behavior of the brandâs X account. Lookonchain reported that Real Trump Coins promoted GOLD on X and then deleted the related posts on Saturday.
That combinationâpublic promotion followed by deletion, while the website remains activeâhas fueled speculation that either the token launch was mishandled, or that the brandâs online presence may have been compromised. Some crypto commentators went further, describing the setup as an apparent scam or rug pull, though the reports in circulation included claims that were not independently substantiated within the available facts.
The immediate practical concern for users is how to verify whether token promotions stem from legitimate operators or from unauthorized actors. In incidents like this, âofficial-lookingâ social posts may not be enough, and the contractâs distribution, liquidity conditions, and wallet behavior can become the more reliable indicators.
Why the Real Trump Coins tie is under scrutiny
Real Trump Coins was publicly promoted by Donald Trump in September 2024, when he highlighted RealTrumpCoins.com during announcements related to his silver medallions. The websiteâs terms state that its products are not manufactured, distributed, or sold by the Trump Organization.
Even with that disclaimer, the GOLD incident revived attention on the ecosystem of Trump-linked crypto activity and the potential governance and conflict-of-interest concerns that come with high-profile endorsements. The episode lands as Trump continues to press Congress on crypto oversight, including legislation aimed at establishing a regulatory framework and clarifying whether tokens should be treated as securities or commodities.
In the weeks and months preceding the broader regulatory debate, Trump and his family have backed or launched multiple crypto ventures, including the Official Trump memecoin and World Liberty Financial. The White House has denied impropriety in connection with these efforts, but incidents like the GOLD collapse inevitably intensify public scrutiny of how legitimacy is communicated to retail investors.
Earlier reporting on these policy efforts has emphasized that lawmakersâ decisions could shape how token issuers and promoters are regulatedâespecially when promotional reach overlaps with political visibility. In that context, the GOLD episode is less about one tokenâs fate and more about the recurring problem of investor harm when marketing appears to outpace verification.
What to watch next
For now, traders and observers will likely focus on whether the GOLD tokenâs contract and wallet flows show any further coordinated activity, and whether Real Trump Coins addresses the on-chain behavior that Lookonchain highlighted. More broadly, the incident underscores how quickly reputational risk can spread when high-profile branding intersects with on-chain launchesâespecially in the absence of clear, verifiable operator confirmation.
Crypto World
Interpol arrests 58 in crackdown on crypto investment scams
INTERPOL has reported 58 arrests, 263 identified suspects and $2.67 million seized after a 22-country operation targeted crypto investment scams, romance fraud and money laundering networks.
Summary
- Operation Jackal IV involved 22 countries across six continents between November 2025 and June 2026.
- Police arrested 58 people and identified 263 suspects linked to West African organized crime networks.
- South African authorities seized $2.67 million and blocked 257 bank accounts after raids in Johannesburg.
- Romanian police arrested 11 suspects in an investment scheme linked to an estimated âŹ143 million.
According to an official INTERPOL release published on Aug. 25, Operation Jackal IV ran for eight months from November 2025 through June 2026 and focused on the financial systems used by West African organized crime groups.
Authorities from 22 countries across six continents took part in the operation, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United Arab Emirates, South Africa, Argentina, Nigeria, Romania, and several European countries.
Investigators focused on groups such as Black Axe and similar criminal organizations accused of running romance scams, fake cryptocurrency investments, business email fraud, and other financial crimes. Police also tracked the shell companies, bank accounts, digital wallets, and outside service providers used to receive or conceal stolen money.
During the operation, INTERPOL helped participating agencies exchange intelligence across borders, analyze financial activity, and coordinate enforcement work. The organization also provided specialist training to investigators handling money laundering cases.
âBy following illicit financial flows across borders, we are attacking the very lifeblood of organized crime and making it increasingly difficult for criminal networks to profit from their activities,â said Tomonobu Kaya, director of the INTERPOL Financial Crime and Anti-Corruption Centre.
Interpol crypto scam operation leads to 58 arrests
Operation Jackal IV resulted in 58 arrests and the identification of another 263 people suspected of links to the targeted criminal networks, according to INTERPOL.
In Argentina, federal police uncovered a Crime-as-a-Service network suspected of supplying website domains and money laundering support to West African crime groups. Investigators identified 196 people connected to the operation and arrested 17 suspects.
An INTERPOL Operational Support Team assisted Argentine authorities with the examination of seized information. The team analyzed the material for links among suspects, criminal groups, and overseas partners while helping local investigators develop additional leads.
South African authorities conducted the largest enforcement action reported in the operation, arresting 39 people during raids at seven locations in Johannesburg. Police linked the sites to a group accused of running romance and investment scams against retirees in English-speaking countries.
According to INTERPOL, members of the network handled different stages of the fraud, with some working as âconversionâ agents and others serving as âretentionâ agents. Such roles involved turning initial contacts into paying victims and persuading existing victims to continue sending money.
Police seized $2.67 million, blocked 257 bank accounts, and collected evidence during the Johannesburg raids. An INTERPOL support team also worked in South Africa to help local investigators examine the networkâs financial and international links.
The agencyâs release lists 17 arrests in Argentina and 39 in South Africa, accounting for 56 of its stated 58 arrests. However, the same release separately reports 11 arrests in Romania, bringing the country-level figures mentioned in the statement to 67. INTERPOL did not explain whether the Romanian arrests were included in its headline total or treated as the result of a connected investigation.
Romanian investment scam allegedly moved âŹ143 million
Romanian police dismantled a call center accused of offering investors large returns from stocks and cryptocurrencies. INTERPOL said the suspects redirected victimsâ deposits to electronic wallets under their control rather than placing the money in genuine investments.
Investigators estimated that the group stole and laundered about âŹ143 million worldwide. Police arrested 11 people and seized approximately âŹ330,000 in cash and cryptocurrency, six properties and several luxury watches.
In Italy, investigators identified one person suspected of involvement in a money laundering network operating across Europe. According to INTERPOL, the network used shell companies, remittance services, and cash withdrawals to hide the source of funds.
A single bank account processed âŹ845,000 across 560 transactions involving 20 financial instruments, the agency said. Investigators did not report an arrest in the Italian case, and the inquiry remained tied to the identification of one suspect.
Operation Jackal IV also found that some West African crime groups were buying Crime-as-a-Service tools from outside providers, often through dark web markets. INTERPOL said such arrangements allowed fraud groups to outsource website infrastructure, money laundering, and other technical work instead of managing every part of their operations internally.
In July, crypto.news reported another INTERPOL operation that produced 5,811 arrests and intercepted $293 million in illicit assets across 97 countries and territories. Operation First Light also identified more than 142,000 victims and blocked over 31,000 bank accounts while targeting romance scams, investment fraud and related money laundering.
Thai police uncovered a crypto laundering network during that earlier operation, with INTERPOL saying one wallet processed more than $122.5 million over 10 months. Investigators alleged that the network moved romance scam proceeds through several digital assets and used cross-chain swaps to make the money harder to trace.
U.S. authorities pursue overseas crypto scam proceeds
The United States was among the 22 countries participating in Operation Jackal IV, although INTERPOLâs release did not describe a specific U.S. arrest or asset seizure from the operation.
American authorities have separately pursued overseas networks accused of targeting U.S. residents with similar romance and crypto investment schemes. In July, the Department of Justice sought the forfeiture of $25 million in cryptocurrency recovered through five investigations involving suspected victims in the United States and Canada.
According to the U.S. Attorneyâs Office for the District of Columbia, the five cases involved fake cryptocurrency platforms and laundering networks with links to China, Malaysia and Cambodia. Prosecutors said the DOJâs Scam Center Strike Force had seized more than $800 million since its creation in November 2025.
One of the investigations involved more than 270 suspected victim transfers and approximately $10.4 million in cryptocurrency, while another covered over 200 romance scam victims and $12.1 million in assets. Under the civil forfeiture process, eligible victims may seek compensation if courts approve the governmentâs claims to the recovered funds.
During a separate June enforcement action, Coinbase froze over $3 million in cryptocurrency tied to alleged Southeast Asian scam networks. The exchange worked with the DOJ, Meta, Microsoft, Starlink and overseas law enforcement agencies to identify financial transfers and online infrastructure linked to romance and investment fraud.
Meta disabled more than 1.4 million accounts, pages and groups connected to suspected scams, while Microsoft suspended about 20,000 accounts. Starlink terminated service for thousands of internet kits associated with suspected unlawful activity, and the Royal Thai Police arrested 63 people linked to scam operations.
-
Crypto World4 days agoSpaceX stock could rise 75% to $240, JPMorgan says
-
Crypto World2 days agoBitcoinâs 22% rally now needs real demand to outlast Treasury liquidity boost
-
Business7 days agoMusk’s Tesla, SpaceX Confirm $16.8 Billion ‘Terafab’ Chip Plant as World’s Largest Building in Texas
-
Fashion19 hours agoWeekend Open Thread: Maeve – Corporette.com
-
Crypto World5 days agoA $30 Billion AI Fund Implodes, Now the SEC Is Investigating Wall Streetâs Role
-
Crypto World3 days agoWarsh Jackson Hole keynote puts financial innovation first
-
Business1 day agoSalesforce Stock Soars 19% as Blowout Earnings and Agentforce AI Growth Silence Software Skeptics
-
Crypto World3 days agoDid Trump Just Move SpaceX Stock With One Truth Social Post?
-
Business6 days agoMystery AI Model ‘Ox Alpha’ Draws Developers With Free Access as Chinese Lab Origins Remain Debated
-
Business3 days agoWalmart takes aim at younger shoppers with new fashion brand
-
NewsBeat3 days agoLindsay Clancy jury braces for closing arguments as judge tells court: ‘You’ve heard all the evidence’ – Live updates
-
Business5 days agoModerna CEO warns China is pouring state money into mRNA technology
-
Crypto World3 days agoElon Musk Grok Bot Promise: We Will Make You Whole if AI Loses Your Money
-
Business5 days agoNVIDIA Stock Drops Nearly 2 Percent to $210 on Seventh Losing Day Ahead of Critical AI Earnings
-
Crypto World2 days agoNVIDIA revenue hits $96.2B as AI demand doubles
-
Business21 hours agoiPhone 18 Pro Pre-Orders Could Shift to Saturday as Apple Reportedly Avoids September 11 Anniversary
-
Business4 days agoThailand’s Eastern Economic Corridor Capital City (EECiti): Key Developments and Investment Opportunities
-
Crypto World5 days ago$92 Billion Nvidia Earnings Could Make or Break the AI Trade
-
Business6 days agoWhere Will Kevin Durant Play in 2027? Rockets Hold Player Option Key to His Future With Houston via Deal
-
Sports6 days agoDeshaun Watson fires back at Browns fans after being booed: ‘It’s a disrespectful thing’

The âspy sheikhâ is now a major backer of the Trump familyâs new crypto bank.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login